📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23
📝 Original message:On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:49:38 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 09:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > Why do clients need to use the features in BIP 64? If Electrum doesn't
> > want to use accounts, then it can just use account 0 for everything.
> > Refund chains are
>
> As Andreas wrote earlier in this thread: "There is no "bare minimum".
> Either you implement the "BIP" fully or not."
>
> What you suggest does not follow the principle of least surprise.
> Suppose user imports his BIP64 compatible wallet into Electrum, which
> claims it is BIP64 compatible, but actually implements just a subset of
> the spec (sticking account index to 0). The user now sees just a
> fraction of his coins and is puzzled.
Any wallet should import all the coins just fine, it just wouldn't *use* any
account other than 0. Remember addresses are used to receive bitcoins; once
the UTXOs are in the wallet, they are no longer associated with the address or
any other details of how they were received.
Luke
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 15:17:56
in reply to nevent1q…e3sd
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 15:17:56Event JSON
{
"id": "0350a10f6d93facc7c75b3fe169418d984ff68d7936551c2673e94558fe46f5b",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686151076,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3d6a81230db6ab232d8356d3ea7e609f18aff1b8f11502ea70755e81b0de88f9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e84c8226b5398c972cba45502c5e043acd14bbefaec4cc16fd32f2a2905d5764",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7631397e469f47f3535567311f5f7c17129e0ff2cb253df015e3d92ddfd92c63"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:49:38 PM Pavol Rusnak wrote:\n\u003e On 04/23/2014 09:44 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Why do clients need to use the features in BIP 64? If Electrum doesn't\n\u003e \u003e want to use accounts, then it can just use account 0 for everything.\n\u003e \u003e Refund chains are\n\u003e \n\u003e As Andreas wrote earlier in this thread: \"There is no \"bare minimum\".\n\u003e Either you implement the \"BIP\" fully or not.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e What you suggest does not follow the principle of least surprise.\n\u003e Suppose user imports his BIP64 compatible wallet into Electrum, which\n\u003e claims it is BIP64 compatible, but actually implements just a subset of\n\u003e the spec (sticking account index to 0). The user now sees just a\n\u003e fraction of his coins and is puzzled.\n\nAny wallet should import all the coins just fine, it just wouldn't *use* any \naccount other than 0. Remember addresses are used to receive bitcoins; once \nthe UTXOs are in the wallet, they are no longer associated with the address or \nany other details of how they were received.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "e5bd94b2c8e74be3ae1ed8a994164463caf20fbe424cf18268acbbfbbdbda7481dfcf80e07d135149c68bbc005b9b0fa33550aa1800efcadc0d28b6c51f9ee53"
}